3 ms·
That is a fair enough point. Most likely the way it is got this way to do with it's history and perhaps its marketing or specifically it's anti-marketing by the
by dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
That is a fair enough point. Most likely the way it is got this way to do with it's history and perhaps its marketing or specifically it's anti-marketing by the communists/socialists. A free market sounds less threatening so they do not use that term.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI have to imagine that when they term was coined in the 1700s, they avoided using "free markets" because they didn't have a problem with free markets. They aimed to criticize capitalists specifically since it was capitalists and not free markets that we're causing the problems. Not propaganda, but criticism targeted enough to be constructive. To oppose something as broad as free markets would be pointless.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago>I have to imagine that when they term was coined in the 1700s, they avoided using "free markets" because they didn't have a problem with free markets. They aimed to criticize capitalists specifically since it was capitalists and not free markets that we're causing the problems. While they targeted the 'capitalists' they had an agenda to push: socialism. Free market in itself cannot be an agenda, it's too vague and simple. I suspect they did have a problem with free markets, though it was never explicitly stated: A true free market causes enormous differences in wealth. (though everyone is better off). A difference in wealth is a big social motivator for resentment regardless of how well off the bottom most rung of society is. Also notice the comment I responded to - the poster used the term 'capitalism/free markets' - so the poster knew exactly the connotation of capitalism ( i.e of free market).